alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service 

 National Institute for Occupational 

 Safety and Health 

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

 4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 

Phone: 513-533-6825 

Fax: 513-533-6826 

March 29, 2007 

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00064 

Peter M. Turcic, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Room C-4511 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Dear Mr. Turcic: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as 

required by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(c), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to 

designate a class of employees at the General Atomics facility, La Jolla, California, as an addition to 

the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 16, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 

SEC: 

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who were monitored or should have been 

monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the General Atomics facility in 

La Jolla, California, at the following locations: Science Laboratories A, B, and C (Building 2); 

Experimental Building (Building 9); Maintenance (Building 10); Service Building (Building 

11); Buildings 21 and 22; Hot Cell Facility (Building 23); Waste Yard (Buildings 25 and 26); 

Experimental Area (Buildings 27 and 27-1); LINAC Complex (Building 30); HTGR-TCF 

(Building 31); Fusion Building (Building 33); Fusion Doublet III (Building 34); SV-A (Building 

37); SV-B (Building 39); and SV-D (no building number) for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1960, through December 31, 1969, or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes 

of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on March 18, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 18, 2007, members of this class of employees, defined 

as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

Sincerely, 

Larry J. Elliott 

 Director 

 Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5937 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5937

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ``65th Infantry 
                    Regiment Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2018

Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico introduced the following bill; which 
    was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ``65th Infantry 
                    Regiment Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 65TH INFANTRY REGIMENT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall be known 
and designated as the ``65th Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``65th 
Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 25, 201 9

No. 04

- 18

- 00808

- CV

Rodulfo J. MENDEZ, Appellant

v.

Jessica AGUIRRE, Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CI00963 Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 11, 2019, we ordered the court reporter to file , on or before July 22, 2019, the

reco rd of the September 28, 2018 hearing during which the trial court heard the Petition for Enforcement of Property Division. On July 22, 2019, the court reporter filed a Notification of Late Record in which the court reporter states “There was no record tak en in this case on September 28, 2018.”

The appellate record is complete. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due on or before August 22, 2019.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
\ Congress of the United States
Washington, BC 20515

June 4, 2009

Paul Ziemer, Chair

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Dr. Ziemer:

We write you today to request that the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health hold one
of its upcoming meetings in Buffalo, New York, to discuss problems with the use of surrogate
data in the dose reconstruction processes for claimants at the Bethlehem Steel site, and the merits
of the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group Special Exposure Cohort application before the
Board.

As you may know, we recently introduced legislation, H.R. 2114 and S. 916, the Ed Walker
Memorial Act for Improvements to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program. This legislation echoes the application of the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group
for designation as a Special Exposure Cohort. It is our contention that these workers should be
classified into a Special Exposure Cohort because of the extreme paucity of data to accurately
access the causation link between the ailments suffered by the nuclear workers and their
exposure to them.

The Bethlehem Steel claimants and their families have been dealing with the results of this
extremely harmful exposure to radioactive particles for decades. Now they have been dealing
with the frustrating and convoluted processes related to the implementation of the EEOICP for
nearly ten years. In order to ensure that the federal government treats these families with
fairness, we urge the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health to come to Buffalo and
hear first-hand the difficulties families have had with the processes as these exist, and understand
arguments for why the Bethlehem Steel Claimants Action Group Special Exposure Cohort
petition is meritorious.

Charles E. Schumer Kirsten Gillibrand Brian Higgins
Senator Senator Member of Congress

A fa rotopeg se

Eric Mas Chris Lee “;
Member of Congress Member of Congress

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 82 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 22626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10070]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-10-013]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: States International Trade Commission.

Time and Date: May 3, 2010 at 11 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: 1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1159 (Final) (Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled 
to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the 
Secretary of Commerce on or before May 17, 2010.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 26, 2010.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2010-10070 Filed 4-27-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 10.1
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN AGREEMENT
 Amendment BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Bank GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., Borrower
 RECITALS
 Loan Agreement
 Section 1.4(a)
 AGREEMENT
 Definitions and References
 Amendment
 Section 1.4(a)
  Representations and Warranties




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment
 (a)
    
    this Amendment executed by the Borrower; and
 (b)
    
    $59,551.74 in payment of a fully earned and nonrefundable
amendment fee.
  Reaffirmation of Agreement
 No Prejudice; Reservation of Rights
 Counterparts
 Attorney Fees
 FINAL AGREEMENT. BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT EACH PARTY REPRESENTS AND AGREES THAT:
(A) THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER
HEREOF, (B) THIS DOCUMENT SUPERSEDES ANY COMMITMENT LETTER, TERM SHEET OR OTHER WRITTEN OUTLINE OF
TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, (C) THERE ARE
NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, AND
(D) THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF ANY PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT
ORAL AGREEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF.




---



##### 



BANK:
    
    BORROWER:BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
    
    GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., a Delaware
corporationBy:
    
    /s/ David R. Barney
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Daniel E. BachusName: David R. Barney
    
    
    
    Name: Dan BachusTitle: Senior Vice
President
    
    
    
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7141

PARIS LAQUISHA FUNDERBURK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPUTY JOHNSON; DEPUTY N. VINSON; DEPUTY WILLIAM BALLEW; 

DEPUTY JOSH GILLESPIE; MAJOR FREEMAN; CAPTAIN HAYES; CAPTAIN 

CODY; LIEUTENANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT DUCLOS; LIEUTENANT 

CUNNINGHAM; LIEUTENANT HOLLIFIELD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-02903-JFA)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paris Laquisha Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE 

BOMAR, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Paris Laquisha Funderburk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the district 

court deny relief and advised Funderburk that failure to file timely, specific objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Funderburk has waived appellate review 

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5538 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5538

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
   certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of 
 suspending charges to veterans' entitlement to educational assistance 
under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during 
    periods of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 2018

   Mr. Peters (for himself, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Walz, Mr. O'Rourke, Ms. 
Brownley of California, Mr. Poliquin, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, and 
 Mr. Palazzo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
   certain additional periods of active duty service for purposes of 
 suspending charges to veterans' entitlement to educational assistance 
under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs during 
    periods of suspended participation in vocational rehabilitation 
                               programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY 
              SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF SUSPENSION OF CHARGES TO 
              ENTITLEMENT DURING PERIODS OF SUSPENDED PARTICIPATION IN 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 3105(e)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``or 12304'' and inserting ``12304, 12304a, or 12304b''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1




Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of
2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GMS Capital Corp.. (the “Company”) on
Form 10–Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:




1.      
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.      
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/
      George MetrakosGeorge
      Metrakos
                Chief
      Executive Officer





Dated:
November 23, 2009
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter H. Jackson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Intraware, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Intraware, Inc.

Dated:
April 30, 2003



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Intraware, Inc. and will be retained by Intraware, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

I, Wendy A. Nieto, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Intraware, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Intraware, Inc.

Dated:
April 30, 2003



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Intraware, Inc. and will be retained by Intraware, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
A96A0272.

#### CLEVELAND v. SNOWDROP PROPERTIES, N.V. et al.

(471 SE2d 542)

Ruffin, Judge.

On November 23, 1992, Deborah Cleveland suffered a compensable workers’ compensation injury while entering the office building where she worked. On November 22, 1994, Cleveland filed a negligence action against the building owner and management company (collectively “Snowdrop Properties”). On May 15, 1995, the trial court granted Snowdrop Properties’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Cleveland’s case was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitation contained in former OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (c). Cleveland appealed from that order, arguing that the amended version of OCGA § 34-9-11.1 eliminated the one-year limitation and allowed her to file suit within the statute of limitation applicable to personal injury actions. We agree and reverse.

The issue in this case is controlled by *Vaughn v. Vulcan Materials Co.,*266 Ga. 163 (465 SE2d 661) (1996). There, our Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he new legislation, enacted April 18, 1995 and effective July 1, 1995, provides that an injured employee must institute a third-party action ‘within the applicable statute of limitations.’ OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (c). The Legislature further provided that *449this revision to the statute would apply retroactively to all injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1992.” Id. at 164.

Decided May 16, 1996.

*Paul R. Vancil,*for appellant.

*Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robin F. Clark, John W. Campbell,*for appellees.

Contrary to the arguments raised by Snowdrop Properties below and on appeal, “[t]here is no vested right in a statute of limitation and a ‘legislature may revive a . . . claim which would have been barred by a previous limitation period by enacting a new statute of limitation, without violating our constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws.’ [Cits.]” Id. “Accordingly, because [Cleveland’s] injury occurred in [November] 1992 and the amendment to OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (c) applies ‘retroactively to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1992,’ it controls in the instant case. [Cit.]” Id.

“The applicable statute of limitation in the present case is two years. OCGA § 9-3-33. [Cleveland] thus commenced the present action within the applicable statute of limitation. The trial court’s order, predicated on the former version of OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (c), fails to comport with the current version of OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (c) as required by OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (e), with the result that it was error to dismiss [Cleveland’s] action as time-barred.” Id. at 165.

*Judgment reversed.*

*McMurray, P. J, and Johnson, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-21-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          21,867
<SECURITIES>                                    37,209
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,323
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,728
<PP&E>                                          14,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,772
<BONDS>                                          1,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,120
<SALES>                                         34,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,707
<CGS>                                            2,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,440)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   912
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,908)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,908)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     348
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,560)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)


</TABLE>